Ballon d'Or 30-man shortlist. Who should win?

[YNWA14]

Wow, this thread is even more biased than I thought it'd be. Of course this year I don't think there's a slam dunk answer, well to a degree there isn't, but some of the names mentioned... And trophies players won with their clubs or worse yet when countries get overrated, especially in this thread considering the names mentioned... World Cup is especially overrated.

The, let's call it "mythology" (though the revisionism is strong), around Modric is kind of incredible at times. I'd say he's a generational midfielder to be sure, but his Madrid years get inflated around here. He never really carried them on his own and their league win really shouldn't have even happened. More to the point though, in his thus far six seasons at the club he didn't start 1/3 of a season's matches in four of those six seasons. On top of that not every season was that good either. Even the last two seasons he wasn't as good as the couple of seasons prior and this season, which is part of the period being assessed if I'm correct, he's not been anything special (though I wouldn't say that's entirely his fault). Of course it doesn't matter as he's going to win it in the end, but as @Evilo noted referencing Ronaldo and Messi the play who should win it doesn't always win, and I'd say it's more than twice that Ronaldo shouldn't have won it.

Messi being written off as he is is also quite entertaining. CL, league and Cup: 44 goals and 18 assists. Again, I know it's calendar year, but even then I'm seeing 26 goals and 11 assists. He delivered two trophies, best league in the World and arguably best Cup in the World and from any measure that I know he was Man of the Match much more than any other player who would be part of this discussion. He had a good World Cup and is on fire this season too.

I don't think Modric's play has dropped off really. He's been as consistent as they come and what he does on the field goes largely unnoticed because I think the way he opens up the field, evades pressure, moves intelligently on and off the ball, etc. isn't something measurable or 'sexy' compared to scoring goals, hitting a beauty through ball, dribbling and being shifty or straight up just having blazing speed. There are no players that single handedly carry teams anymore, and it won't happen again.

That said I agree with it being weird that Messi would be written off. No idea how anyone could say Hazard had a better year than Messi or deserves the Bd'O more for example. Like I said though for me it's Modric, Messi and Ronaldo.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

That said I agree with it being weird that Messi would be written off. No idea how anyone could say Hazard had a better year than Messi or deserves the Bd'O more for example. Like I said though for me it's Modric, Messi and Ronaldo.

It's as simple as people wanting a new winner after over a decade of back-and-forth. Messi remains by a country mile the best player in the world. Without a doubt. But there's serious Messi-Ronaldo fatigue, and so a new winner would be fun. I am the one vote for Hazard here, and I preluded it by asserting my intense biases.

The other thing to note is WC year sways people in that direction. Like it or not, WC performance gets pretty heavily weighted above all else in stuff like this. Messi was good (hell, he was the one half-decent thing about that trainwreck of an Argentina side), but Hazard was the best player in the tournament.

 

[les Habs]

I don't think Modric's play has dropped off really. He's been as consistent as they come and what he does on the field goes largely unnoticed because I think the way he opens up the field, evades pressure, moves intelligently on and off the ball, etc. isn't something measurable or 'sexy' compared to scoring goals, hitting a beauty through ball, dribbling and being shifty or straight up just having blazing speed. There are no players that single handedly carry teams anymore, and it won't happen again.

That said I agree with it being weird that Messi would be written off. No idea how anyone could say Hazard had a better year than Messi or deserves the Bd'O more for example. Like I said though for me it's Modric, Messi and Ronaldo.

Modric the last two seasons hasn't been as good as he was say the previous two. I'd say last season is more indicative of this. Anyway, I'm not saying he fell of a cliff. Far from it. Still arguably the top CM out there. And it also shouldn't be a surprise considering he's getting older. I think the way he plays is far more "sexy" than the way a lot of goalscorers play, but I've always appreciated CMs. As for players carrying teams, I guess it depends on how you look at it, but Messi still does in some matches. That's not to say he doesn't have help, but as much as in the past I wasn't worried about us losing him, now I'm getting a bit worried.

Messi is being written off elsewhere too. People put too much emphasis on the World Cup. CL I understand, but even then it's just "what he did in the CL" and nothing else seems to factor in. For me it's Messi and Ronaldo and from there it isn't that difficult to choose.

 

[les Habs]

It's as simple as people wanting a new winner after over a decade of back-and-forth. Messi remains by a country mile the best player in the world. Without a doubt. But there's serious Messi-Ronaldo fatigue, and so a new winner would be fun. I am the one vote for Hazard here, and I preluded it by asserting my intense biases.

The other thing to note is WC year sways people in that direction. Like it or not, WC performance gets pretty heavily weighted above all else in stuff like this. Messi was good (hell, he was the one half-decent thing about that trainwreck of an Argentina side), but Hazard was the best player in the tournament.

Paulinho or Yerry winning it would be fun. Hazard not so much.

 

[YNWA14]

I don't agree that Hazard was the best player in the tournament, but even if he were it certainly doesn't eclipse the mediocre season he had with Chelsea and how poorly that team did in general last season.

Messi/Ronaldo fatigue is understandable, but there still needs to be merit behind the player that people want to break the cycle. Modric is the only one from this past year that has the clout IMO, otherwise you'd have to give it to Messi.

This year, at least so far, has looked a lot more interesting though. There are quite a few players off to great starts that just need to hold their consistency.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Paulinho or Yerry winning it would be fun. Hazard not so much.

Y'know, Yerry is a WC record holder - if he had played a single minute for Everton this fall he might be in with a shot.

 

[Corto]

In a world where nobody would compare the croatian league or the US league.
Basically when players are in their prime on comparable leagues.

So, yeah, much more.

Premiership is the only league they both played in. During his time in England, Vieria scored 40 goals in 452 games 0.08 gpg).
Modric scored 17 in 159 games (0.106 gpg).

So, unless you wanna measure only leagues where it suits your narrative, it doesn't compute.

But the thing is, it does not even matter. Whoever thinks Modric's game is about goals or direct assists either doesn't watch him or doesn't understand football.
His game changed when he came to Real, but his influence on the game increased as he moved closer to a regista/box-to-box role than being further ahead.

 

[Evilo]

Premiership is the only league they both played in. During his time in England, Vieria scored 40 goals in 452 games 0.08 gpg).
Modric scored 17 in 159 games (0.106 gpg).

So, unless you wanna measure only leagues where it suits your narrative, it doesn't compute.

But the thing is, it does not even matter. Whoever thinks Modric's game is about goals or direct assists either doesn't watch him or doesn't understand football.
His game changed when he came to Real, but his influence on the game increased as he moved closer to a regista/box-to-box role than being further ahead.

Vieria played 280 league games with Arsenal. He scored 29 goals and assisted 35 more.

Modric has played 293 league games with both Spurs and Real. He has scored 22 goals and assisted on 34 more.

Indeed, whoever thinks Vieira was just power that could score an odd goal on a corner kick doesn't understand football or didn't watch him.
And if you think Vieira was only about goals and assist but not facilitator, pressing, transition player, then...

 

[YNWA14]

Luka Modric - Stats by Club
Patrick Vieira - Stats by Club

This doesn't back up Vieira being more productive.

For those too lazy to click the links (note they played about the same number of minutes over this period):

Modric - 35 goals and 77 assists between Real Madrid/Spurs (counting league and CL only)
Vieira - 36 goals and 33 assists with Arsenal (counting league and CL only)

 

[Evilo]

I gave the numbers above.
Luka Modrić — Wikipédia
Patrick Vieira — Wikipédia

 

[YNWA14]

Yeah, Wikipedia is not a good source for stats. Transfermarkt is more accurate.

 

[Evilo]

According to whom?

 

[YNWA14]

According to whom?

Because, like with anything you read on Wikipedia, you should be using it more for a general overview not for specificity. All of its content is user submitted citing other sources; for example the stats which appear on Vieira's Wikipedia page cite Transfermarkt as their source (circa 2015). From a quick glance it seems likely that whomever entered it on the website probably wasn't very meticulous. You're relying on peer review on a site that most probably don't care, or don't know, to do it.

As with any information consumed in today's day and age it's important to check the source and do some verifying of your own. Question everything (which is to say that tranksfermarkt is not infallible, but it's a better resource if you're looking for soccer statistics than Wikipedia).

 

[Evilo]

Modric's stats are even dated on Wiki.

 

[Corto]

For those too lazy to click the links (note they played about the same number of minutes over this period):

Modric - 35 goals and 77 assists between Real Madrid/Spurs (counting league and CL only)
Vieira - 36 goals and 33 assists with Arsenal (counting league and CL only)

Thank you.

 

[YNWA14]

Modric's stats are even dated on Wiki.

Ok, I should be more clear, wikipedia is not a source. If you are using wikipedia for your information it will source where that data came from at the bottom, but be aware that anyone could have entered it and it won't have the greatest amount of quality control since most people when looking for statistics will go direct to the source and not bother cross referencing.

I'm only telling you this again because I've seen you use wikipedia as your source multiple times before where it has been wrong (I'm trying to be helpful).

 

[Evilo]

Lol, link me to something I quoted from Wiki that was wrong.
Wikipedia isn't always accurate in specific areas of very precise things. Stats are usually up to date.

 

[YNWA14]

Lol, link me to something I quoted from Wiki that was wrong.
Wikipedia isn't always accurate in specific areas of very precise things. Stats are usually up to date.

Vieria played 280 league games with Arsenal. He scored 29 goals and assisted 35 more.

Modric has played 293 league games with both Spurs and Real. He has scored 22 goals and assisted on 34 more.

Indeed, whoever thinks Vieira was just power that could score an odd goal on a corner kick doesn't understand football or didn't watch him.
And if you think Vieira was only about goals and assist but not facilitator, pressing, transition player, then...

 

[les Habs]

Yeah, Wikipedia is not a good source for stats. Transfermarkt is more accurate.

I won't say Wikipedia is better, but back in 2017 LITN was using it for something and Transfermarkt's numbers were not accurate.

 

[YNWA14]

I won't say Wikipedia is better, but back in 2017 LITN was using it for something and Transfermarkt's numbers were not accurate.

Because, like with anything you read on Wikipedia, you should be using it more for a general overview not for specificity. All of its content is user submitted citing other sources; for example the stats which appear on Vieira's Wikipedia page cite Transfermarkt as their source (circa 2015). From a quick glance it seems likely that whomever entered it on the website probably wasn't very meticulous. You're relying on peer review on a site that most probably don't care, or don't know, to do it.

As with any information consumed in today's day and age it's important to check the source and do some verifying of your own. Question everything (which is to say that tranksfermarkt is not infallible, but it's a better resource if you're looking for soccer statistics than Wikipedia).

One of the pages in question literally cites transfermarkt (2015) as its source.

 

[les Habs]

That's the thing, I don't think it's a better source though. I would only use either in comparison to probably two other sites or if I'm in a hurry, but I really wouldn't use Transfermarkt at all considering how off it was in the example I gave. I would only ever reference it for transfer or contract figures.

 

[Evilo]

Where's your proof I'm wrong?
Next time you want to check facts, maybe you should think twice.

 

[YNWA14]

That's the thing, I don't think it's a better source though. I would only use either in comparison to probably two other sites or if I'm in a hurry, but I really wouldn't use Transfermarkt at all considering how off it was in the example I gave. I would only ever reference it for transfer or contract figures.

In such large databases mistakes are not uncommon regardless of the platform. The point is that wikipedia is not a source, and transfermarkt absolutely is better to reference. Especially when you consider a lot of what is on wikipedia in terms of data comes from transfermarkt, except it's being copied over by a random user which increases the chance of introducing error.

Anyway, if your focus is on one incident that you can't quite recall and that is your basis for saying transfermarkt is as unreliable as wikipedia, that's fine. The message is the same and that's your choice.

Where's your proof I'm wrong?
Next time you want to check facts, maybe you should think twice.

As always, you are right.

 

[Evilo]

I appreciated the way you used "multiple times" and couldn't come up with anything. Well done.

 

[YNWA14]

I appreciated the way you used "multiple times" and couldn't come up with anything. Well done.

Believe me, I have a far greater appreciation for the effort I put in to help you understand what you continually reference to be met with the same indignation you bring to anyone who challenges anything you say, regardless of intention.